Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 30, 2012 5:00pm-5:30pm PDT

5:00 pm
and, so that's one thing. initially, i looked at the california public utility commission rules and things like that too, although i understand san francisco and the water department has its own way of operating and the ability and authority to do so, their policy was to not allow -- that if it's going to be, if a property owner is going to be liened to have the property owner notifyd and put in a public, have it notified in a public circulation and thanks like that. you can't put it on the property tax rule. they do that because they understand the department's need, certain powers, there has to be balance and equity among certain groups. i guess the water department is able to put this on the property tax role too.
5:01 pm
without getting into details because i know my time is limited. there's a lot of things i'm uncovering. this just seemed quite unfair. it tilts the balance of fairness away from the property owners who are semi-innocent in this situation. >> your point is clear and we will take a look at that and get a report back. >> should i have -- i have the stuff you sent. would there be any help in me submitting this or no? >> yes, if you could give that to todd. >> okay. all right. thank you very much, appreciate your time. >> is there an appeal process for these kinds of issues? >> we do have todd, the assistant general services
5:02 pm
c.f.o. this is a commercial account as i recall it. so it goes through the standard procedure, and we are on a bimonthly billing cycle. we have a delinquency notice process followed by a lien process if the account is not cleared. in this case, i can assure you, we looked at the procedures, but it does raise some questions. i think one thing that will help landlords in the future is our movement to monthly billing cycles as part of our new a.m.i. program. otherwise, absent property owners including utility costs as part of monthly rent, the account holder information is the renter's rights.
5:03 pm
we are held to the privacy rights. >> this is a commercial tenant? yes, this is a commercial tenant. >> noreen, city attorney's office. while this is on public comment and not on the agenda, we can agendize, but we're not supposed to engage in discussion because other people that might be interested in this subject don't have advance notice. if we can follow up at the next meeting. >> i wasn't talking about the specific case. i was using it as an analogy. >> before commissioner courtney engaged in further dialogue, i was just alerting him we are not supposed to be dialoguing. >> my question was more about the process. i just wanted to know is there an appeal process. you indicated there isn't for commercial tenants?
5:04 pm
>> no, we exhausted this already >> if the purpose of engaging in further dialogue. my question would be -- does this commission have the authority to grant jurisdiction to the residential appeal's board specifically for the purpose of hearing appeal such as the one that's pending? do we have that authority? >> um, you have the authority to set policy with respect to this matter. when we bring it back to you, we can outline what those options are. is that okay? >> okay. >> so, i just want to be clear on what the next step is, which is we're going to review the policy at a subsequent meeting
5:05 pm
and it will be agendized appropriately to delegate that and review the policy. >> and see whatever -- what, if any adjustment to that would be appropriate and doable. >> if i may. we will actually examine the account. make recommendations and i think todd mentioned some of the recommendations about going from bimonthly to monthly. we will talk about the noticing process, and we will see how many other accounts suffer the same consequences. we will come back with a recommendation. >> thank you for those first official comments -- >> welcome aboard. >> i was waiting to dive in. yeah. [laughter] >> and they were wise and welcome, sir. >> okay. thank you very much.
5:06 pm
ms. jackson. i believe you wanted to speak. >> she looks awfully nice today. >> especially for you, sweetheart. [laughter] >> espinolda jackson. i am representing the black human rights council of san francisco. i came today in order to congratulate the three commissioners that were reappointed. i am so happy because i have talked to some of the supervisors prior to the fact that you all knew what was going on especially in my community. and that's your skirt. made the honest point. i'm so happy you all was reappointed because you know the concerns of the community and
5:07 pm
also came to congratulate the new mr. harlan kelly. i would like to say to you, mr. kelly, i know you have some shoes to follow. big shoes to follow. and i am looking to be working with you and also the organization that i represent. as well as we are going to work with all of you commissioners. but i wanted to just say thank you, thank you, thank you, for everything that you have been involved in with my community. because most people they never listen. but you all have listened. this body has listened and i want to thank you again. so congratulations and you will be invited to come to one of our meetings where we will be putting you on the spot at that time. thank you very much. >> thank you for a fair warning. ms. smith. >> good afternoon.
5:08 pm
i am diane westly smith. i just want to echo ms. jackson's words. she told me a lot about the history of the p.c. and your involvement in our community. i want to thank you, and i wanted to congratulate the commissioners that were reappointed and congratulate the new general manager, mr. harlan kelly. i knew it was going to happen. i really look forward to your involvement as a commissioner and your continued involvement and expanding your involvement in our community because you do listen. i have seen it. i was living there when you began your work when the work started on the first treatment plants. anyway again, congra congratulations. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> okay. thank you. moving on to communications.
5:09 pm
commissioners, any comments or questions on the communications you have in front of you? i just have two brief ones. the advance calendar shows we have put over the rate fairness policy or the, what are we calling it? the rate payer assurance policy. in order that the cac can have an opportunity to look at that and make their own comments. i have seen some of the other comments that have come in. i think they are constructive and useful. terence and i had a brief discussion earlier that i have asked him and the cac to see if there's a way we can reschedule things so that when something is referred from the commission to the cac it doesn't take a whole month to cycle back to us. that's a scheduling and
5:10 pm
coordination issue. i have asked them to take a look at that. i do look forward to the comments. the other comments, the letter we sent to m.i.d. at the end of the negotiations for the water transfer, i think there's a cautionary tale there and it is that all of these transactions, even the ones that were really simple, aren't. and to beware of anybody who says that you can just get your water some place else. it is never that easy. it's never that simple. where you have 2200 acre foot transfer, has drawn that kind of opposition. i think there's a lesson we need to be mindful of. any other thought or comments on communications. any public testimony on the communications?
5:11 pm
moving on to other commission business. madam secretary, would you call that item. >> item 6. discussion of san francisco public utilities rules of order. >> okay. thank you. this is an item when i first took the gavel a year ago, i started talking to noreen and the general manager about just kind of repairs that we should make. a couple areas where it got out of sync with current law. one thing i know that has dragged on. i wanted to get it back before i left office. what you, what was distributed to you, we are not going to act on today. there's a requirement two week's notice before any change. this will come back at our next meeting for action. the changes in the red line
5:12 pm
strike out copy you have, so it takes the order of business and amends it to our current order business. one place where it has substance to it is the amount of notice we give for water rate changes. it actually shortens the time in the process making it winter with the board of supervisors policy. if we wanted to retain the older, longer time line, we certainly could choose to do that. couple comments. one of the reasons this hasn't come back sooner is because i haven't, just in being chair, i haven't noticed anything that wasn't there that i wished was. i don't think there needs to be something that needs to be fixed. our rules of order of very brief.
5:13 pm
they do not reference and are no bound by robert shules of order, you have a motion and a second. if it's been agendized, we cannot act on it until it has been seconded. some commissioners have referenced them. we do not, what it comes down to, your chair as the authority to rule on points of order. and that is subject to you know, an appeal by any member of the commission and on a majority vote of the commission you can overrule your chair. it gives procedural protection anybody could hope for without inviting the complexity. i'm not recommending it be
5:14 pm
there. it's a little bit odd perhaps it isn't, but i think works. >> didn't you put it in? >> no. >> i thought i read there has to be a motion and a second. >> i haven't see the we will conduct our business according to the robert shules point of business. there was a point of confusion. there's nothing that calls for more than a simple majority vote. so if and under roberts again, if you wanted to limit, it would take a two-thirds vote, in our case, three out of five so it's a 60% vote. we do say that in order to maintain a quorum that
5:15 pm
commissioners should not leave the meeting without permission of the chair. that's important. and that basically you vote unless you're excused by the commission. one thing where our life has changed. we now have a lot of electronic stuff. we have ipads and there's no use to restrict their use during the meeting. the board of supervisors have wrestled with this and decided not to impose a particular rule. it's something we need to be sensitive to. there are ways in which they can be abused and we need to be careful not to. i guess there are, if there's an incentive. there's a legal query. they can be discoverable if they were taking place during a
5:16 pm
meeting. so -- >> discoverable period. irrespective of a meeting or not. >> aren't they discoverable period? >> noreen ambrose, city attorney's office. if these are personal communications on your personal devices that they would not be public records and therefore on that basis, they would not be discoverable. but, the cautionary advice that the city attorney has given. the line between personal and public record is not very clear in the law, and that the biggest concern i think is that if you e-mail something or texted something that had to do with
5:17 pm
business, it can be forwarded to more of a quorum by the commission not necessary by you but by someone else. that would incur a meeting that would be in violation of the brown act. there are protocols about how you communicate about the commission's business to ensure those communications are not extended to other commissioners, that's one of the things that, in the good government guide, the city attorney has recommended the commissions grapple with this issue and think about having policies about e-mail, texting and communications because of their ability to be easily forwarded by other individuals. does that answer your question? >> i am going to request from our attorney any information related to what we just kind of flushed out. the forwarding.
5:18 pm
because if someone is not acting with our agency, then i don't think they can attend a meeting for us. so i'm real curious about the priority. we're all engaging in those electronic communications. that's something that piqued my interest. >> i just said -- i would recommend we have a conversation about that because it seems highly unusual to me that a third party can somehow without our knowledge, create liability under the sunshine ordinance and put us into a meeting together. but i understand why we would want to avoid that outcome, i'm requesting that specific information so that we can have the liberty of reviewing. >> i would be happy to provide
5:19 pm
the background on the meeting and what risks and measures you can take to prevent that by putting something specifically in your communication that says this is not to be disclosed. that would go to the intent issue. >> commissioner courtney raised a good point. the siriata meeting applies to us and not the public. if the public wants to send something to all five of us, that's legal. if something they send to all five of us that originated from us -- >> we would argue it was your intent it wasn't distributed and you weren't communicating how you wanted a particular subject matter to be voted on et cetera. >> i think, commissioner, that guidance is appropriate and is welcome. i think on a lot of this stuff, i don't know there are rule that is necessarily come out of this.
5:20 pm
but the discussion is important. being conscious of the issue. we're supposed to do our business in public. if we were getting text messages saying, ask this question or vote this way, that would be inappropriate. i don't know that we need rules for that. we just need to be smart and aware. >> are we under knox-teen jurisdiction? >> no, we're under the brown act that's different than the brown act and public disclosure >> it's a subject matter the city attorney addressed with other commissions and i would be happy to provide the guidance. it's of course an evolving field. the attorney general is often asked to look into these
5:21 pm
questions and review them through the brown act. so we'll try and stay abreast of that. >> i think commissioner courtney's comments are more than appropriate because it's much more manageable with this size of a commission. the stem cell governing board is 29 members. this has to be constantly over sighted and it's a nightmare. >> there's a different ex-party communication rule that's not applicable here to >> correct. >> commissioner caen. >> i have one issue that i don't believe goes into a rules of order but does bother me. maybe it rests with the board of supervisors. but as you all know, our terms are up august 1st. and that's when the board of supervisors goes on vacation. so we have sort of a whole empty month. i was going to recommend that our terms would be until september 1st so we would have two working months. we have 60 days after our term
5:22 pm
is over to serve. and then after 60 days, i don't know. we go into a puff of smoke or something. i don't know what body that goes under. i don't know if that's in our rules order. >> commissioner caen, that rule is in the charter and would require a charter amendment to change that date. it was the voters who adopted that charter amendment and installed that date. the board of supervisors can introduce charter amendments, but it would have to go on the ballot again. so. >> as you know, most commissions, it's january is the date. january 21st. if it's -- if it can't be done. i thought it would be easier. >> it can be done.
5:23 pm
recognize is requires a vote of the people to amend the charter to provide -- >> okay. we have some swearing in going on in the back room, which is why we have some announcements. >> are you official now? >> i don't think they can do it until the board votes. you kind of have to wait for that. no. okay. um, any other comments? >> yes, >> i have a comment. and i just, i want to raise sort of rule number six on the election of officers. just to open up the conversation. you know, i don't know if i feel strongly one way or the other, does feel like a one-year term is relatively short for president and vice president to
5:24 pm
be in office. and maybe commissioner caen can answer this a bit and probably best since she's been here. but also this issue that a serving president or vice president is ineligible for a second term. i don't know where the origin of that was and i'm just curious. i believe commissioner caen that maybe, i'm asking about the election of officers and how it's a one-year term and you can't serve an additional second year term. just the origin of that and whether that seems to be a policy that the commission feels like is a good one. >> well, it has been the policy of the commission ever since i recall. and the idea behind it, or one of ideas behind it is that if one serves as an officer, they get to know the commission limp
5:25 pm
as you go from being a president, you're still very involved in the commission and the business. it rotates the power so there's not one person that has the power and give us more of a sense of belonging. >> yeah. i mean, i was just wondering if two years or there's the opportunity to serve a second year would be of interest to the commission? >> one of problems with a two-year rule is under the current one-year rule, within somebody's term of office, the odds are pretty good they will be chair. because people come and go. not everybody serves the full term. just historically, that happens. so for the reasons that commissioner caen said, where there's value in having that experience and the sense of skin in the game, that's best served
5:26 pm
with a one-year rule and not a two-year rule. it has been, it is also a rule of order that can be suspended by the commission and there have been times in our past when the commission for a specific reason has chosen to do that. i think, i mean my own sense it's a pretty good rule. and i welcome the election. it will give me a little bit of a breather. >> as vice president, if the president is not around, has to assume the duties. >> yes, ma'am. any other thoughts or comments. this is not an action item that will come back to us. >> i can't find words you can't serve more than one term. >> rule number six. >> here we have a com for four-
5:27 pm
terms. it's conceivable that either one of three could be in line to be vice president or president again. but if they serve in that capacity, then who do we go to? noreen? no. it says consecutive. >> okay. okay. all right. i misunderstood. >> all right. >> and there have been commissioners -- how many times have you served as president of the commission? >> um, i have served four times and each time it's been sort of unusual. like i served for a year and a half because something was wrong or somebody went off the commission. it's just the way it is. but as if we keep on succession and the three of us that have been reappointed perhaps, we would be in succession to be president as it turns out.
5:28 pm
and some people don't like to serve as president. there's always that possibility. >> and in that case, the rules become suspended and somebody else assumes. >> if someone didn't want to serve, they could decline and goes next to the rotation. if you wanted to do something, i mean the specific prohibition. you could suspend the rules and that has been done. >> great. thank you. any public comment on this issue? this is not an action item. okay. thank you. and this is if something comes up or you want to you know suggest a change, then we have time to think about that and deal with that as well.
5:29 pm
>> okay. and back to the agenda. that concludes item six. next is the report of general manager. >> harlan kelly, general manager. first of all, iment wanted to t the commission for their support. it has been a pleasure serving under ed. one thing mr. harrington has left in place is a good team. i am looking forward to serve the commission with the team to do great things. so with that, i have the privilege to have a very short general manager's report by saying that's it. thank you. [laughter]